Peter and Lopakhin were set up as foils of eachother? Peter just seems like the most honorable of the bunch, the perpetual student, always willing to learn from others. Lopakhin doesn't seem so honorable, and thinks he is the best. At one point Lopakhin actually offers Peter some money, and Peter turns it down. Peter says, "Mankind marches forward to the highest truth, to the highest happiness possible on earth, and I march in the foremost ranks." (42) He is very noble indeed. He always seems like he has thought about what he says and is presenting his point of view in speech form. Whereas Lopakhin has an airs about him as if he cares not if other people like what he has to say or if they understand his reasoning behind things. He just wants them to comply. His money is all he cares about. He says, "But God alone knows what most of the people in Russia were born for...Well, who cares? It doesn't affect the circulation of work." (42) Lopakhin is direct, whereas Peter is euphemistic. Should we shy away from talking about the symbolism behind each character and why they were set up as foils?
Just a side question, what is this highest truth Peter speaks of? Is it living liberated from the oppressive hands of the rich? - KLe-c Mar 5, 2008
I don’t see Peter and Lopakhin as foils. I do see that they differ in the fact that Peter is indirect while Lopakhin is blunt, but I don’t see any other way that they are completely opposite of each other. I think part of the reason I disagree is that I don’t take Peter’s little speech about Mankind and what not very seriously. I don’t see that as very noble because he doesn’t have a whole lot of other noble moments that make me believe that this noble quality is an actual part of his character. When Ranevsky, I think, talks about the death of her son, who Peter knew well from tutoring him, he said one little thing and then moved on from the conversation. If he was truly noble, he would have done some more empathizing and shown some real emotion and sadness over the tragic event. I think that each character is very symbolic in this play and that we need to consider them because of it but i don’t think that these two particular characters were set up as foils, unless someone can come up with some more ways of comparing them in which they come out as total opposites. - kli-c Mar 5, 2008
Really I see Firs as being the foil to Lopakhin in some respects. Even though Lopakhin seems to be much younger than Firs they have similar backgrounds but ended up on opposite ends of the spectrum. Lopakhin's family were peasants just like Firs was. The difference was, that when they were liberated, Firs was unable to take advantage of the liberation and find a better life because he was too set in his ways, but Lopakhin was able to work his way up in life, to the point where at the end of the play he owns the very estate that his family used to work. I think that if Firs represents the old regime, the way things used to be, then Lopakhin represents the ideal future where people who were once peasants can make a life for themselves. - jko-c Mar 9, 2008
I agree that Peter and Lopakhin weren't complete opposites: both of them represented a motion away from the old order. Lopakhin came from a family of peasants, and he raised himself up in the world by his own strength. Peter is the enlightened youth, having thought deeply and come to his own conclusions about right and wrong and the path of humankind. Both counter the old ways of strict social rules and upholding tradition without thinking.
However, I think that they still can be set as foils. Peter represents a return to morality--he is a scholar, a thinker, and he is looking for meaningful answers. Lopakhin, on the other hand, represents a turning away from morality. While the old days before the revolution were characterized by loyalty and integrity within the social heirarchy, Lopakhin has abandoned any kind of loyalty he may hold to Ranevsky when he purchases her estate for his own gain, also showing his materialism. Peter, oppositely, has returned to the Ranevsky family out of loyalty and emotional ties. Therefore, though both characters are moving away from the old and into the future, Peter returns to morality while Lopakhin abandons it. - lsi-c Mar 10, 2008
I don't see Lopahkin and Peter as foils at all. They exhibit different traits and tendencies, but they are not polar opposites of each other. To answer your side question, I don't think that the highest truth is being liberated from the rich; it's too concrete and simple especially for someone like Peter who is constantly learning. I think the highest truth that he is referencing is the constant pursuit of knowledge. Learning to him is the ultimate truth- MSu-c Mar 11, 2008 I agree with jko. I can definitely see Firs and Lopakhin as being foils to one another. Firs is still stuck in the past he doesn't appear to be very open to change. At the end of the play he gets left behind in the old house to die. He is left behind with the past because he didn't stay caught up with the present. Lopakhin on the other hand took advantage of change and is very accepting of it. He is the character that suggests that the cherry orchard be sold in order to save the Ranevsky family. This would be a very big change for the family. He doesn't fear this change as many characters do. I think that Firs and Lopakhin are used as a contrast to each other in order to emphasize the theme of change and the past in this play. I don't quite see the same affect with Peter and Lopakhin.- bga-c Mar 12, 2008
Well, I think you're a little off on a thing or two. Peter really isn't eager to learn about everything and study forever. It's more like he's sorta just wavering around being a student for longer than he should, and does have his 'college student ideals' but he's somewhat blind too. See, he can't see love, he can't feel anything but his ideals, and so he misses the ethos Madam R uses. But he's a foil to L for a few reasons. L is course, uneducated as he says himself, and he's highly materialistic and practical. He doesn't care about philosophy, greatest good, or anything abstract. To him it's simply, you have a problem, you have a money issue, deal with it, find a way around. He's a thinker in cold hard logic. Peter doesn't stand for that kind of 'brutish' talk, but he's not necessarily a better person. He didn't accept the money, but I think that was partly because he just didn't like L. - AZU-C Mar 12, 2008
I agree with kli, I don't exactly see lophakin and Trophimof as foils. I see them as different representations of two different types of people we can critique in life. Lophakin is the man who we see who cares more about his things than his people, his money and prosperity more than his history and culture. This man requires critique. Lophakin is indeed greedy, blunt and selfish, but Trophimof is no angel either. He may have had a few good thoughts, but there is also something to be said about being a perpetual student. One can only be a student so long before he must do something productive and good with his education. We cannot be students forever just as we cannot stay children forever. Another flaw in his character is his intellectually arrogant attitude. For example, when he talks of love he continually exclaims that he is "above love." The truth is that none of us are above love because love is the top. And to say you are above it is just pompous. so no I don't see them as foils, more just different representations of flawed characters.- MKo-c Mar 12, 2008
Mko, I disagree with you. I believe they are foils. Lopahkin is practical and rational while Trophimof is imaginative and emotional. We see how Lophakin interacts with Barbara. He is definitely not in love with her, but we see the puppy love with Trophimof and Barbara's little sister. Lopahkin does not know what love is partly because he was beaten as a child, and Trophimof believe he is above love. Lopahkin makes fun of Trophimof for being a perpetual student because he himself was never able to attend school because he grew up as a peasant. I also not not think that Lopahkin is completely "greedy, blunt and selfish." He offered to loan the family money to save their estate, and he even created a play to save it. That's pretty nice. - kva-c Mar 13, 2008
On another topic, I suggested that Peter was more than likely a representative of the liberal socialists rising up in the colleges of Russia in the latter half of the 1800s. If that is his character, then Lopakhin is almost certainly the laissez faire capitalist. Finally he, a peasant, had the opportunity to compete in Russian society. His rags to riches story is indicative of the fruits of capitalism. Of course, this can come at the expense of his "morality" (although I have never taken him in a bad light, as some people seem to. Was he really supposed to buy back the land for the Ranevskys?). One of his most stunning characteristics is his work ethic. "I work from morning till night; I am always handling my own money or other people's.." (24). Thus he is able to move up as a capitalist. Peter is in every way his foil. Every way. He is lazy, even Madame Ranevsky said so. He has allowed his body to atrophy, in the name of his ideals. He is self-sacrificing to the last, while Lopakhin goes after his own happiness. And while Lopakhin finds inspiration in his past, Peter looks to the future to find his own inspiration. Even their handling of woman is different. Both deny their own love, but it is an unexpressed tension between Lopakhin and Barbara while Peter rejects the love that he shares with Anya. Yet my certainty in this pair of foils is a lot more concrete than my belief in any other foils that may exist, such as Madame Ranevsky and Peter. What other foils might there be? - TRu-c Mar 13, 2008
Just a side question, what is this highest truth Peter speaks of? Is it living liberated from the oppressive hands of the rich? -
I don’t see Peter and Lopakhin as foils. I do see that they differ in the fact that Peter is indirect while Lopakhin is blunt, but I don’t see any other way that they are completely opposite of each other. I think part of the reason I disagree is that I don’t take Peter’s little speech about Mankind and what not very seriously. I don’t see that as very noble because he doesn’t have a whole lot of other noble moments that make me believe that this noble quality is an actual part of his character. When Ranevsky, I think, talks about the death of her son, who Peter knew well from tutoring him, he said one little thing and then moved on from the conversation. If he was truly noble, he would have done some more empathizing and shown some real emotion and sadness over the tragic event. I think that each character is very symbolic in this play and that we need to consider them because of it but i don’t think that these two particular characters were set up as foils, unless someone can come up with some more ways of comparing them in which they come out as total opposites.
-
Really I see Firs as being the foil to Lopakhin in some respects. Even though Lopakhin seems to be much younger than Firs they have similar backgrounds but ended up on opposite ends of the spectrum. Lopakhin's family were peasants just like Firs was. The difference was, that when they were liberated, Firs was unable to take advantage of the liberation and find a better life because he was too set in his ways, but Lopakhin was able to work his way up in life, to the point where at the end of the play he owns the very estate that his family used to work. I think that if Firs represents the old regime, the way things used to be, then Lopakhin represents the ideal future where people who were once peasants can make a life for themselves. -
I agree that Peter and Lopakhin weren't complete opposites: both of them represented a motion away from the old order. Lopakhin came from a family of peasants, and he raised himself up in the world by his own strength. Peter is the enlightened youth, having thought deeply and come to his own conclusions about right and wrong and the path of humankind. Both counter the old ways of strict social rules and upholding tradition without thinking.
However, I think that they still can be set as foils. Peter represents a return to morality--he is a scholar, a thinker, and he is looking for meaningful answers. Lopakhin, on the other hand, represents a turning away from morality. While the old days before the revolution were characterized by loyalty and integrity within the social heirarchy, Lopakhin has abandoned any kind of loyalty he may hold to Ranevsky when he purchases her estate for his own gain, also showing his materialism. Peter, oppositely, has returned to the Ranevsky family out of loyalty and emotional ties. Therefore, though both characters are moving away from the old and into the future, Peter returns to morality while Lopakhin abandons it. -
I don't see Lopahkin and Peter as foils at all. They exhibit different traits and tendencies, but they are not polar opposites of each other. To answer your side question, I don't think that the highest truth is being liberated from the rich; it's too concrete and simple especially for someone like Peter who is constantly learning. I think the highest truth that he is referencing is the constant pursuit of knowledge. Learning to him is the ultimate truth-
I agree with jko. I can definitely see Firs and Lopakhin as being foils to one another. Firs is still stuck in the past he doesn't appear to be very open to change. At the end of the play he gets left behind in the old house to die. He is left behind with the past because he didn't stay caught up with the present. Lopakhin on the other hand took advantage of change and is very accepting of it. He is the character that suggests that the cherry orchard be sold in order to save the Ranevsky family. This would be a very big change for the family. He doesn't fear this change as many characters do. I think that Firs and Lopakhin are used as a contrast to each other in order to emphasize the theme of change and the past in this play. I don't quite see the same affect with Peter and Lopakhin.-
Well, I think you're a little off on a thing or two. Peter really isn't eager to learn about everything and study forever. It's more like he's sorta just wavering around being a student for longer than he should, and does have his 'college student ideals' but he's somewhat blind too. See, he can't see love, he can't feel anything but his ideals, and so he misses the ethos Madam R uses. But he's a foil to L for a few reasons. L is course, uneducated as he says himself, and he's highly materialistic and practical. He doesn't care about philosophy, greatest good, or anything abstract. To him it's simply, you have a problem, you have a money issue, deal with it, find a way around. He's a thinker in cold hard logic. Peter doesn't stand for that kind of 'brutish' talk, but he's not necessarily a better person. He didn't accept the money, but I think that was partly because he just didn't like L. -
I agree with kli, I don't exactly see lophakin and Trophimof as foils. I see them as different representations of two different types of people we can critique in life. Lophakin is the man who we see who cares more about his things than his people, his money and prosperity more than his history and culture. This man requires critique. Lophakin is indeed greedy, blunt and selfish, but Trophimof is no angel either. He may have had a few good thoughts, but there is also something to be said about being a perpetual student. One can only be a student so long before he must do something productive and good with his education. We cannot be students forever just as we cannot stay children forever. Another flaw in his character is his intellectually arrogant attitude. For example, when he talks of love he continually exclaims that he is "above love." The truth is that none of us are above love because love is the top. And to say you are above it is just pompous. so no I don't see them as foils, more just different representations of flawed characters.-
Mko, I disagree with you. I believe they are foils. Lopahkin is practical and rational while Trophimof is imaginative and emotional. We see how Lophakin interacts with Barbara. He is definitely not in love with her, but we see the puppy love with Trophimof and Barbara's little sister. Lopahkin does not know what love is partly because he was beaten as a child, and Trophimof believe he is above love. Lopahkin makes fun of Trophimof for being a perpetual student because he himself was never able to attend school because he grew up as a peasant. I also not not think that Lopahkin is completely "greedy, blunt and selfish." He offered to loan the family money to save their estate, and he even created a play to save it. That's pretty nice.
-
On another topic, I suggested that Peter was more than likely a representative of the liberal socialists rising up in the colleges of Russia in the latter half of the 1800s. If that is his character, then Lopakhin is almost certainly the laissez faire capitalist. Finally he, a peasant, had the opportunity to compete in Russian society. His rags to riches story is indicative of the fruits of capitalism. Of course, this can come at the expense of his "morality" (although I have never taken him in a bad light, as some people seem to. Was he really supposed to buy back the land for the Ranevskys?). One of his most stunning characteristics is his work ethic. "I work from morning till night; I am always handling my own money or other people's.." (24). Thus he is able to move up as a capitalist. Peter is in every way his foil. Every way. He is lazy, even Madame Ranevsky said so. He has allowed his body to atrophy, in the name of his ideals. He is self-sacrificing to the last, while Lopakhin goes after his own happiness. And while Lopakhin finds inspiration in his past, Peter looks to the future to find his own inspiration. Even their handling of woman is different. Both deny their own love, but it is an unexpressed tension between Lopakhin and Barbara while Peter rejects the love that he shares with Anya. Yet my certainty in this pair of foils is a lot more concrete than my belief in any other foils that may exist, such as Madame Ranevsky and Peter. What other foils might there be? -